ReviewCureus2025
Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Breast, Lung, and Colon Cancer: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Detection and Characterisation of Bone Metastases on MRI: A Scoping Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Bilateral-Asymmetry-Aware Multiple-Instance Learning for Breast Cancer Classification on Chest CT.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted early screening of lung cancer and accurate diagnosis of pulmonary nodules: research progress and clinical prospects from radiomics to multi-omics integration: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Review
- Artificial intelligence in immunotherapy: revolutionizing diagnostic and therapeutic applications in cancer and autoimmune diseases.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer: A Narrative Review of Recent Advances in Diagnosis, Biomarker Discovery, and Drug Development.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing early cancer detection by enhancing the sensitivity, efficiency, and precision of screening programs for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers. Deep learning algorithms, such as convolutional neural networks, are pivotal in improving diagnostic accuracy by identifying patterns in imaging data that may elude human radiologists. AI has shown remarkable advancements in breast cancer detection, including risk stratification and treatment planning, with models achieving high specificity and precision in identifying invasive ductal carcinoma. In colorectal cancer screening, AI-powered systems significantly enhance polyp detection rates during colonoscopies, optimizing the adenoma detection rate and improving diagnostic workflows. Similarly, low-dose CT scans integrated with AI algorithms are transforming lung cancer screening by increasing the sensitivity and specificity of early-stage cancer detection, while aiding in accurate lesion segmentation and classification. This review highlights the potential of AI to streamline cancer diagnosis and treatment by analyzing vast datasets and reducing diagnostic variability. Despite these advancements, challenges such as data standardization, model generalization, and integration into clinical workflows remain. Addressing these issues through collaborative research, enhanced dataset diversity, and improved explainability of AI models will be critical for widespread adoption. The findings underscore AI's potential to significantly impact patient outcomes and reduce cancer-related mortality, emphasizing the need for further validation and optimization in diverse healthcare settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.